Question about Scientists and Politics

[Pangloss]

Obviously I'm way behind in this thread, having been away for a couple of days. Sorry about that.

 

Mokele, your post #55 was great -- we're very much in accord at that point.

 

But did you see this post (#57)?

 

Yes, the study did indirectly indicate that conservatism may be inherently flawed. For one, it results in traits -- such as intolerance -- that are contradictory to one of the major ethical bases of conservatism; in this case Christianity.

 

The problem you have is that philosophy is outside science. ALL science can do is show the results of a given philosophy. It is up to people, from beliefs outside of science, to decide whether those results are "bad" or "good".

 

Not "some conservatives". Not "some insane people". "CONSERVATISM." Lucapsa just said that SCIENCE PROVES CONSERVATISM IS FLAWED...

 

...and you let it pass, saying nothing!

 

Phil was putting up the same kind of nonsense in this thread. Why are you arguing with me instead of these guys? You come back with all this stuff about "well yeah both sides are flawed", so how come you stomp on the ones that say "liberals are flawed" and let the ones who say "conservatives are flawed" fly by without a word?

[PhDP]

Phil was putting up the same kind of nonsense in this thread.

 

This is getting very irritating, where did I said conservatism was flawed ? I talked about personality, conservatism and science, but I never attacked conservatism as a political philosophy, and I certainly don't think science proves conservatism to be flawed, I never even implied this. Really I don't know why you're saying I said "conservatives = bad, liberals = good", is it some sort of tactics becase you don't want to argue on the facts ? I've quoted articles from serious publications, and I've defended the idea that scientists are probably liberals because of their personality, that's all. And the only answers I got from you, and I find this very ironic as you were the one accusing me of having prejudices, were personal attacks and diverstions ("Blacks" IQ, PC...), this is fallacious and has no place in a civilized discussion.

[Pangloss]

That's easy, Phil:

 

I can't believe you would seriously compare the hostility of some extremists on the left to the hostility of conservatives.

 

Down in one. Want another?

 

We're not speaking of just one or two conservatives, the republican party have been close to many pseudoscientists when it comes to important issues like the environment, genetics, evolution...

 

AND you cheered Lucapsa's nonsense on top of all that, stating for the record that you agreed with his position.

 

And that's ignoring your use of the word "incompatible", to which you objected. I think you're splitting hairs because of a personal bias and not being objective. But THAT's fine, you have a right to your opinion. What I object to was your use of science to pretend like it's an objective, factual truth rather than a personal preference and opinion.

 

But you've retracted that position, saying that you were taken out of context, and I accept your retraction. You stand corrected. But you were corrected, and so I mentioned it again above for context wrt lucapsa.

 

I don't have a problem with your use of science to indicate why some scientists might lean to the left. I think your point there was legitimate.

[Mokele]

My appologies if this is prying too much into your personal life, and feel free not to answre: but how did you end up with most of your friends being gay? it seems a bit statistically anomolous?

 

Oh, no worries, it's pretty simple: this university doesn't really have any worthwhile clubs except the Alliance, so when I first got here I attended some meetings, made some friends, and then met their friends, went to the local gay bars, etc. For all the drama, there's a very real sense of community and acceptance.

 

Mokele I believe Oreskes, 2004 (from the wp article) was the paper you cited early but couldn't remember the name of, that indicates 0% disagreement with certain assertations of GW theory.

 

Thanks, yeah, that's the one!

 

Mokele, your post #55 was great -- we're very much in accord at that point.

 

Thanks, glad that could get cleared up.

 

But did you see this post (#57)?

 

Not really. Unless I'm being quoted, I tend to just skim. Plus right now I'm so overworked I'm amazed I'm even cogent.

 

Mokele

[PhDP]

Another thing now... I said I agreed on "most" of the things Lucaspa said, not "everything". I just said I didn't believed conservatism was shown by science to be flawed, so how can you say I agree with his position ? And I do agree with most of the things he said; global warming, survival of the fittest...

 

About the rest... I believe "incompatible" was a correct word, again you're not arguing on the facts, you're only trying to set up a staw man, you perfectly know I never meant that a conservative could not be a scientist, I said this many times. You're contansly saying I have personal preferences, bias, prejudices, what's your point ? That I'm not a robot with 100% objectivity, great, but that doesn't make my argument false and that certainly doesn't justify the use of fallacious arguments.

 

But you've retracted that position, saying that you were taken out of context, and I accept your retraction.

 

That's interesting. So you claimed I've retracted, and then you accept a "retraction" that you've invented ? And it was taken out of context, you implied I said ALL conservatives could not be scientists.

 

I want an answer on something. You accused me of having said "conservatism = bad, liberalism = good". I've never done that. And you claimed I supported the view that conservatism was refuted by science, that's a lie. Again I'm asking, where ? You quoted me saying I thought conservatives were more hostile to science. I still think that's true (however, this has nothing to do with my argument about why scientists are leaning to the left). That's not the same thing as saying conservatism is bad or refuted, how on earth could take "conservatives are more hostile to science", and then say;

 

I'm questioning the value of it, vis-a-vis using it to draw the conclusion that liberals are good and conservatives are bad (which is what Phil was doing).

 

I don't have a problem with your use of science to indicate why some scientists might lean to the left. I think your point there was legitimate.

 

That was my point. But you said that "Phil's ideological point (about conservatives) doesn't hold water on a logical/scientific level, and therefore has been thoroughly refuted". I think I've shown very well my initial argument, using a logical/scientific argument. And NO, my initial argument was not that conservatives are evil or idiots, only that some traits associated with conservatism are incompatible with science, nothing else. And NO, it doesn't mean ALL conservatives shares the same traits, or that a conservative will burst into flames if he tries to enter Harvard, a quick read of the few references I've given is enough to understand that.

[D H]

And NO, my initial argument was not that conservatives are evil or idiots, only that some traits associated with conservatism are incompatible with science, nothing else.

 

There are also some traits associated with liberalism that are incompatible with science. Science is ruled by fact, not by consensus. We can't overturn the laws of physics by a majority vote or by a court ruling. Rockets are shaped like phaluses not because rocket science is dominated but a bunch of male chauvinist pigs but because that shape is the best aerodynamically (and because Roman chariots were just wide enough to accommodate the back ends of two war horses). Bottom line: Both conservatism and liberalism have some traits that are incompatible with science.

 

I don't think its fair to paintbrush scientists as liberal in general. The political views tend to coalesce differently depending on the field and whether one works in academia, a research lab, or industry. For example, I have yet to meet a non-liberal mathematician, but the physicists, chemists, materials scientists and engineers I am familiar with span the political spectrum.

[lucaspa]

There has been and continues to be a lot of basic reseach done in private industry. The transistor (Bell Labs) and the single chip CPU (Intel) were developed with corporate IR&D funds. Even the oft-hated Microsoft has an incredibly large R&D department, and this includes a lot of people doing basic research.

 

And what does the transistor do? It replaces tubes. So yes, the research always had a product in mind: the replacement of tubes. Same with the single-chip CPU. Up until then computers were huge things with lots of circuits. Put all those circuits on a small chip and you have a new product!

 

The only example of basic research in industry I can think of were the discovery by 2 Bell Lab employees of the cosmic microwave background radiation. And even that was incidental to looking at possible interference with radio and trying to improve reception.

 

The SBIR programs have been a rather ineffective R&D investment by the government. Many agencies use their SBIR programs an auxiliary funding source to fund work they want done but that wasn't funded by Congress.

 

Nobody said it was "effective". Just that SBIR is geared to initial studies in basic science that, otherwise, the company would not do.

 

Many (maybe even most) companies that participate in the SBIR programs are small government contractors.

 

Not that I know of. They are small start-up companies that use the SBIR grants to supplement venture capital. Especially Phase I SBIR's are geared to small, exploratory programs to try to do "proof of principle" experiments.

 

Part of the problem is that the SBIR programs don't give out enough small rewards and are too reluctant to wield the hatchet on those projects that do receive funding. In the area I am familiar with (NASA), about 12% of the initial proposals are funded (Phase I) but a huge 40% of the Phase I proposals go on to Phase II.

 

That makes sense. Application for phase II is done after feasibility has been demonstrated with phase I. So all the phase I's that fail are never submitted for phase II!

 

Dealing with a large number of tiny contracts is anathema to government bean counters.

 

These are NOT "contracts". SBIR is for research, not meeting a contract to supply X number of widgets.

 

Industry has learned that some apparently crackpot ideas can become big winners, but that most ideas go nowhere.

 

And you have demonstrated that SBIRs are doing the same thing. Much of the phase I research goes nowhere and therefore a phase II is never submitted. With a smaller pool of applicants for phase II, it is no wonder that 40% of that pool are awarded funds.

[lucaspa]

Yeah, I think Mokele made that point earlier. But, there is competition and natural selection within a given species. It's not all about competition between the species - there's plenty of competition going on within the species as well. Mating preferences, pack leaders and etc... Human packs fight with other packs of humans.

 

You still miss the point: the "struggle for existence" is a metaphorical struggle, not a direct, beat your opponent to death competition. Instead, it is a struggle with the environment and scarce resources. Plants in a desert are struggling with the lack of water. That struggle does not involve one plant stealing water from another. Instead, it involves an individual having adaptations to either 1) obtain more water or 2) use it more efficiently.

 

In many environments, cooperation benefits the individual. For dolphins, for instance, cooperating to drive away sharks improves everyone's survival. Yes, humans fight, but they also cooperate. Cooperation within the group is more advantageous than fighting between members. Cooperation between groups is also beneficial. Most "fights" between members of the species are ones of display, not actual violence. Because violence itself carries too much risk and the individual that regularly resorts to violence is going to become injured -- which lowers survival.

 

You can take issue all you want but there are 4 pages of posts that contradict it being an invalid association.

 

I've read the 4 pages. Please be specific about the posts you think make the link between capitalism and natural selection valid.

 

Survival of the fittest is a description of part of the natural selection process - not the synonym.

 

No, it is the synonym. Back to Darwin. Title of Chapter IV of the 6th edition of Origin of Species: "NATURAL SELECTION; OR THE SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST"

 

Yes, I can see how the word god on the dollar bill violates your liberties...slippery slope right? ... Congress shall "endorse" no religion. God is not a religion. And the government is not endorsing any particular worship of it/her/him.

 

1. The First Ammendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" No "endorse" there at all.

 

2. Theism is most certainly a religion. Having "God" on the currency is government "establishing" a religion -- theism. And remember I'm a theist. In 1798 atheism was not a rational faith -- because the Argument from Design was unanswerable. Therefore atheism was not considered by the Founding Fathers. People could say "God" on the currency because, in effect, there were no atheists. The distinction, or "establishment", was between different versions of theism.

 

However, when Darwin removed the Argument from Design by the discovery of natural selection, atheism became a rational faith. So now, instead of different versions of theism, we also have the faith of atheism. And for government to promote theism -- by the currency -- is against the First Ammendment.

Paranoia: "Well, I guess I'd have to challenge the validity of the study since intolerance is a major characteristic of liberalism. They are intolerant of individuality and civil liberties."

 

Lucaspa: "And yet you've never read the Methods section, have you? This is argument ad hominem, pure and simple.

 

No it's not. Intolerance is a trait possessed by people who can't stand others having a different view and find some way to force them to behave within their view.

 

You blasted the validity of the study based SOLELY on the "intolerance ... of liberalism". That's an invalid way to critique a scientific study. In order to cry "intolerance" or "bias" in a scientific study, you must demonstrate that the methods used were wrong. To do that, you must read the Methods section. There are ways to remove personal bias from a study.

 

So, since you have not read the Methods section, you have no valid way to say there is "intolerance" in the study. You can't dismiss the data that way. "Liberalism" may be as intolerant as you say, but that does not mean the study was invalid, or even that the researchers were liberals!

 

This is ridiculous. Am I supposed to spend the next years of my life soley reading papers on GW and learning climatology?

 

You just really don't want to look at the data, do you? If you take the papers in Science and Nature for the past 5 years, the total pages will be less than an average novel. So you will need a couple of evenings or so.

 

Are we supposed to get degress and read papers from dusk til dawn on the hundreds of issues relevant today? ... Right now, all the climatology so and so's are arguing with each other.

 

Read Dak's post. NO, they are not arguing. Yes, you let the experts do the heavy lifting of the actual studies; you only have to read about them. And that takes a lot less work. Enough less work that you can, with very little effort, read a good deal of the relevant literature.

 

Paranoia "You are demanding a conclusion without the facts to empirically prove that conclusion."

 

Lucaspa "No, I'm saying the empirical facts are already there. The conclusion is obvious with the current data. I'm just saying that your refusal to look at the data is religion: the religion of already having decided and wanting the world to be the way you want, not what it is."

 

Paranoia: "I doubt humans are the cause of it, but most certainly accelerated it. If anything, that's where my prejudices would lead me. ... Your bias is overwhelming Lucaspa. Why even address my post? You already have me figured out and categorized and dismissed. That's intolerance. And since you have no facts to support your conclusions of my intent, it's also emotion based - religion."

 

1. You admit you have prejudices, not data.

2. I am not dismissing you, but analyzing your behavior. My "facts" are what you write in your post. Specifically, it is the continued refusal to go look at the data while simultaneously maintaining that the facts to warrant a conclusion of GW are not there. You claim the facts are not there, but refuse to go look at the facts.

 

You said "I see religion in these things when the believers depend on faith for one, and are unmoved by contrary facts or two."

 

You are unmoved by contrary facts. So unmoved you won't even LOOK at the contrary facts. So, by your own definition, your rejection of GW is religion.

 

You may not like the conclusion, but the logic is straightforward. If you want to change my conclusion, then you need to present me with "contrary facts or two" You haven't done that.

 

Models are not empirical. But they're convincing - very convincing.

 

Yes, models are empirical. They are generated from empirical data and are continually refined by empirical data.

 

You walked in the door with your mind made up about GW. When Bascule and I try to tell you about empirical data, you refuse to look at it. We are basing our conclusions on data. You are basing yours what you admit is your "prejudice".

 

Right. And what's wrong with that? You want to do it all? You act like turning a profit is evil or something. ...The only point, still the only point relevant here is that the private sector does invest in research.

 

Remember the claims. Always remember the claims. The original claim (by me) that one reason scientists like government is that government provides the basic research money. Someone else claimed that corporations fund basic research. My counter to that was that the basic stuff is done in academic labs and, only when a profit can be seen, do companies come in. The relevance here is that the private sector only invests in SOME research. And that most scientists do research that the private sector will not fund.

 

It's OK that the private sector makes a profit. But the very fact that the private sector MUST make a profit limits the type of research they fund, particularly when the private sector is a public corporation. Corporations have to pay dividends, otherwise the stockholders invest their money in a company that will pay higher dividends. And really basic research does not pay profits, or, if they do, it is 10 or 20 or 30 years down the road. Stockholders won't wait that long. The private sector funds research directly geared to a product that they can sell for profit. They aren't going to go looking for possible adult stem cells or the role of p53 in cancer. Once some researcher funded by the government (or non-profit) discovers adult stem cells or that p53 plays a key role in cancer, THEN corporations may pay for research to use adult stem cells to regenerate tissue or ways to modify p53 as a means of treating cancer. Geared to product. And profit.

 

And the freedom to dictate smoking ends at my front door. Period. If I own the business, you're trampling on my rights to smoke in it. Public property is a different story and I would agree 100%.

But by running a business you are making your property public. You are inviting in the public, are you not? ALL the public. Not just a few friends and/or neighbors who agree to accept the risk, but EVERYONE because you want to sell to everyone so that you can make that profit. So, just as I have a reasonable right to expect that, when I walk into a public bar, that the owner is NOT releasing low levels of mustard gas and poisoning me, I also have the right to expect that I can buy a drink without being poisoned by cigarrette smoke.

 

And you are a religious zealot that is intolerant of anything less than 100% belief, despite the state of affairs.

 

The premise here is that the "state of affairs" is not conclusive evidence. But the premise is wrong. ALL I have been doing is saying that there is conclusive evidence. In my case, there are no "contrary facts or two". Therefore my position, by your own definition, cannot be "religion".

 

It is NOT guaranteed that the smoke is going to hit you because you can walk yourself right back out of the restaraunt. If enough of you do that, the owner will rethink his approach on smoking or his business will eventually die.

 

By the time you detect the smoke -- thru your sense of smell -- you have already gotten some of it in your lungs! Think about it. Put this in terms of mustard gas. By the time you smell the mustard gas, it is already in your system.

 

Yes, if enough people refuse to go to an establishment, it is out of business. We could do the same with a business that releases small amounts of mustard gas. But that is illegal, isn't it? WHY? Because it is a poison. Well, cigarette smoke is also a poison. So far we have been able to ignore that because 1) a lot of people like smoking and 2) it was not known that second hand smoke is a poison and 3) the smoke has been able to be diluted. Well, you could claim that the mustard gas is diluted, too! BUT, once a substance has been recognized as a poison, your right to release it so that it can affect other people ends.

 

What about car exhaust? Where's the outrage on that? Some of us don't drive at all, yet we have to inhale that crap. And that's public roads.

 

There has been outrage! Why do you think we have catalytic converters to cut down on that pollution?! Why do you think we have laws on emission controls? And which party is fighting it? The Republicans and conservatives.

 

Not when our interests are not at stake. This isn't about wages or benefits. It's about how the company chooses to run their business.

 

Isn't that in your interest? After all, if the company is run badly and goes bankrupt, your wages and benefits end. And wages and benefits were about how the company was run, wasn't it? Isn't that telling the company how much they have to pay their workers? As I remember what I learned in history, when employees did start agitating for higher wages and benefits or safety, the companies did say "Get another job if you don't like it but don't force your views on me". In some cases over mine safety, the companies even got the government to send in troops to prevent the workers from "forcing their views".

 

is the principle I'm talking about. I always break things down to fundamentals - because it's the fluff that hides the obvious.

 

And here your breakdown shows that you wouldn't have the wages or benefits you do if the "principle" you are espousing had been held to. Because no one would have "forced" companies to include health benefits or safe working conditions.

 

What you are arguing is not the principle -- you agree that employers have the right to attempt to force the company to change -- but this particular application of the principle. You don't think this particular issue should be forced on the company. You may be right. I don't know enough about this particular issue to judge. But I do know that employees do have the right to use pressure to get the company to change policies and how the company is run: lunch hours, work hours, wages, benefits, etc.

 

You are the beneficiary of generations of workers doing what you say should not be done! I think the word for that is "hypocrisy".

[lucaspa]

Not "some conservatives". Not "some insane people". "CONSERVATISM." Lucapsa just said that SCIENCE PROVES CONSERVATISM IS FLAWED...

 

...and you let it pass, saying nothing!

 

Because I didn't say what you say I said. I never said what is in capital letters. It's stranage that you made that mistake, because you had the quote from me right above it:

 

"Originally Posted by lucaspa

Yes, the study did indirectly indicate that conservatism may be inherently flawed. For one, it results in traits -- such as intolerance -- that are contradictory to one of the major ethical bases of conservatism; in this case Christianity."

 

let me use caps also: "MAY BE INHERENTLY FLAWED". "INDIRECTLY INDICATE". Nowhere did I say "proved". The study did what I said it did, but nothing further.

 

I did point out that the resultant traits the paper talked about were contradictory to Christianity and that Christianity is claimed -- by conservatives -- to be the major ethical basis of conservativism. Therefore, by pure logic, if conservativism leads to traits contrary to Christianity, conservatism is flawed because it is internally inconsistent.

 

Phil was putting up the same kind of nonsense in this thread. Why are you arguing with me instead of these guys? You come back with all this stuff about "well yeah both sides are flawed", so how come you stomp on the ones that say "liberals are flawed" and let the ones who say "conservatives are flawed" fly by without a word?

 

Because what is being discussed is NOT "conservatives are flawed" but what a particular paper said. Did the particular paper demonstrate what people claimed the paper demonstrated? THAT is the issue.

 

A separate issue is whether the paper is accurate in its assessment of the outcome of conservativism. In order to assess THAT, we need to read the paper in detail. I have not done so. Have you?

[lucaspa]

There are also some traits associated with liberalism that are incompatible with science. Science is ruled by fact, not by consensus. We can't overturn the laws of physics by a majority vote or by a court ruling.

 

Have liberals ever done this? OTOH, we have seen the introduction of several laws by conservatives trying to overturn the facts of science. Look at all the attempts to get Flood Geology taught as valid, or young earth taught as valid.

 

I know of a law conservatives passed in Illinois stating "the value of pi = 3.0" because this is what is stated in the Bible. I also know of a law in Iowa passed by conservatives that says "sucrose shall not be diluted by the substance glucose".

 

 

Bottom line: Both conservatism and liberalism have some traits that are incompatible with science.

 

That's an assertion without evidence. I'd like to see some evidence, please. Please demonstrate particular traits of liberalism and exactly how they are incompatible with science. Thank you.

 

I don't think its fair to paintbrush scientists as liberal in general.

And yet the OP did just that, didn't it?

 

However, your statement says nothing about "scientists in general". You only said that they "covered the spectrum". What you need is to plot the number of scientists on the y -axis vs a continuum of conservative to liberal on the x-axis and see what the curve looks like. You could have a skewed curve where the bulk of scientists are on the liberal side of the x-axis but that there is a long narrow tail leading to the ultra-conservative side of the x-axis.

[ParanoiA]

In many environments, cooperation benefits the individual. For dolphins, for instance, cooperating to drive away sharks improves everyone's survival. Yes, humans fight, but they also cooperate. Cooperation within the group is more advantageous than fighting between members. Cooperation between groups is also beneficial. Most "fights" between members of the species are ones of display, not actual violence. Because violence itself carries too much risk and the individual that regularly resorts to violence is going to become injured -- which lowers survival.

 

Who said there wasn't cooperation? What exactly do you think I'm saying in my OP? I said that unfettered capitalism is akin to survival of the fittest in the economic world. There's cooperation between employees to form a business - grouping up. All working together, with pack leaders and so forth. competing with other groups of humans, or businesses, and etc. I'm not going to paint the whole damn picture, it's really very obvious.

 

You can still cooperate but not "carry" people.

 

1. The First Ammendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" No "endorse" there at all.

 

I've always heard "shall endorse no religion", but that's cool. Point still stands. God is not a religion. Theism is not a religion. In God we trust on the dollar bill is not establishing any religion. You just want to stick it to the religious. I harbor no anger so could care less about chicken little, the big bad wolf or god.

 

2. Theism is most certainly a religion. Having "God" on the currency is government "establishing" a religion -- theism.

 

Theism is not a religion.

 

RELIGION:

. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.

8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.

—Idiom9. get religion, Informal. a. to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices.

b. to resolve to mend one's errant ways: The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.

 

THEISM:

1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).

2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism).

 

The difference is, one suggests the code and rules of conduct, right and wrong - moral compassing. The other simply recognizes the existence of god or gods and remains generic. Religion is basically that code. Theism is not. Atheism may be a faith, but I would disagree with anyone that it is a religion.

 

Believe it or not, I get your point but I don't get the fury. I think most of the energy spent on making a stink about god is retaliation for perceived oppression by the religious right. I'm not entirely against it, but "god" on currency? Please....

 

You blasted the validity of the study based SOLELY on the "intolerance ... of liberalism". That's an invalid way to critique a scientific study. In order to cry "intolerance" or "bias" in a scientific study, you must demonstrate that the methods used were wrong. To do that, you must read the Methods section. There are ways to remove personal bias from a study.

 

Then I'll retract my statement as I don't have the time or care to disprove the scientific study based on the Methods section. I guess I see it like this: Someone touts a study that suggests all liberals like pink. Since I know 5 liberals who don't like pink - the study sounds invalid. I don't even have to read it to know it's wrong. Since I know just about every idealogue practices intolerance, whether they realize it or admit or not, I suspect the study is BS. Yes I could gain credibility from reading it, but I'd rather practice guitar or pound out a good drum beat. When it matters enough to me, I'll check it out.

 

1. You admit you have prejudices, not data.

 

You totally misunderstood my post. I was making the point that if I was prejudiced, then I would already be convinced of GW. Since that's where my suspicions lie. That's what I meant by "if anything, that's where my prejudices would lead me..." Since I'm not convinced, obviously I'm not following my suspicions. I'm assuming my prejudice would follow my suspicions.

 

2. I am not dismissing you, but analyzing your behavior. My "facts" are what you write in your post. Specifically, it is the continued refusal to go look at the data while simultaneously maintaining that the facts to warrant a conclusion of GW are not there. You claim the facts are not there, but refuse to go look at the facts.

 

You said "I see religion in these things when the believers depend on faith for one, and are unmoved by contrary facts or two."

 

You are unmoved by contrary facts. So unmoved you won't even LOOK at the contrary facts. So, by your own definition, your rejection of GW is religion.

 

You may not like the conclusion, but the logic is straightforward. If you want to change my conclusion, then you need to present me with "contrary facts or two" You haven't done that.

 

Completely false. I have every intention of reading the above, and more because I doubt I'm going to get an unbiased report in ONE publication. But I have quite a busy life here, and I'll get to it when I can. Even if I already did, I'm still going to continue this particular discussion as if I haven't - because you have failed to get my point.

 

GW IS NOT EMPIRICALLY PROVEN.

 

Again...with definitions...

 

1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment.

2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. as in medicine.

3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

 

A model is not empirical. A model is a "near" perfect simulation in which you can pretend is empirical. But it's NOT empirical. It would be like doubting the world is round. People do that, and no one pays any attention to them - it's emprically proven otherwise. Well, people are doubting GW, and lots of people DO pay attention to them precisely because it isn't empirically proven. Geez this is getting tiring...

 

You know, you all make people not want to believe in GW. I'm starting to form a prejudice now because I want you to be wrong. Maybe if you had let me walk in the door, look around a bit, rather than jump all over my ass because I won't just accept GW 100% right out of the gate...

 

You walked in the door with your mind made up about GW.

 

So..let me get this straight....when I say "I believe in GW today, but i'd rather be convinced"...that's just like saying "I've already made up my mind and GW is complete crap cuz Rush says so...".

 

Yeah I can see that....

 

I guess Pangloss and I are both in the "denier" club then. Feels weird being a "denier" and yet arguing with conservatives on my floor about GW...

 

So, just as I have a reasonable right to expect that, when I walk into a public bar, that the owner is NOT releasing low levels of mustard gas and poisoning me, I also have the right to expect that I can buy a drink without being poisoned by cigarrette smoke.

 

Well, I'd agree with you, but since I disagree with one small fraction of it that means I'm prejudiced and against the whole damn thing...

 

There has been outrage! Why do you think we have catalytic converters to cut down on that pollution?! Why do you think we have laws on emission controls? And which party is fighting it? The Republicans and conservatives.

 

While I agree some "symbolic" steps have been made, I can "smell" all of the toxins you have yet to cut down on. This is a violation of my rights. What if it was mustard gas coming out of these exhaust pipes huh? Automobiles should be banned from use on public property and roads.

 

And here your breakdown shows that you wouldn't have the wages or benefits you do if the "principle" you are espousing had been held to. Because no one would have "forced" companies to include health benefits or safe working conditions.

 

Maybe if you could tell me which sentences you're reading and which one's you're not, it would be very helpful.

 

I made it quite clear we have every "legal" right to do any of this. We are organizing and using our mass as leverage to get something we want from our employer. We can choose to use that leverage frivolously, or responsibly. I think forcing the company to listen to us is wrong - a frivolous application of our organization skills. This would be like you hiring some kid to work in your garage, and him forcing you to listen to his ideas of how you should organize it. That's wrong. In my opinion.

 

I love unions. I think it's quite democratic and american to organize. But hey, since I disagree with you on one little aspect of it, I'm a total denier right? I have made up my mind and am completely against the union and any organization, right?

[D H]

The only example of basic research in industry I can think of were the discovery by 2 Bell Lab employees of the cosmic microwave background radiation. And even that was incidental to looking at possible interference with radio and trying to improve reception.

 

There are plenty of pure researchers in industry. Microsoft, for example, has a lot of researchers who are not tied to any end goal.

 

Nobody said it was "effective". Just that SBIR is geared to initial studies in basic science that, otherwise, the company would not do.

 

SBIR research projects are never basic science. They are applied research with a very specific goal. Have you looked at the research calls?

 

Part of the problem is that the SBIR programs don't give out enough small rewards and are too reluctant to wield the hatchet on those projects that do receive funding. In the area I am familiar with (NASA), about 12% of the initial proposals are funded (Phase I) but a huge 40% of the Phase I proposals go on to Phase II.

That makes sense. Application for phase II is done after feasibility has been demonstrated with phase I. So all the phase I's that fail are never submitted for phase II!

 

I don't think you got my point. That failure rate (60%) is far too low!

 

These are NOT "contracts". SBIR is for research, not meeting a contract to supply X number of widgets.

 

When you win an SBIR award, you get a contracting officer, a contracting officer's technical representative, a list of required deliverables, a contract number, and a legal agreement signed by the company's management and by the government agency. The government calls this agreement a contract. The company calls it a contract and makes sure you meet the deliverables so the government will pay the company as negotiated in the contract.

 

Much of the phase I research goes nowhere and therefore a phase II is never submitted. With a smaller pool of applicants for phase II, it is no wonder that 40% of that pool are awarded funds.

 

You have the numbers wrong. It is not 40% of the Phase II proposals that receive awards. 40% of the Phase I winners go on to Phase II. This is far too high.

 

The formula used in industry (a large number of initial awards, about 10% get bigger awards) doesn't work with the SBIR program because of the baggage associated with the program. Each award is a separate government contract with all the overhead associated with a government contract.

[Pangloss]

Because what is being discussed is NOT "conservatives are flawed" but what a particular paper said. Did the particular paper demonstrate what people claimed the paper demonstrated? THAT is the issue.

 

A separate issue is whether the paper is accurate in its assessment of the outcome of conservativism.

 

Nonsense. You latched on to that paper like Al Gore coming to Miami to give a talk on global warming in July and starting with the word "SEE?!" You used it as scientific evidence that your ideology is not only the morally correct one, but that it is also the only logically correct one. So what if you had to use the word "evidence" instead of "proof"? You used it as science, not as opinion. My criticism was valid.